↓ Skip to main content

Wolters Kluwer

Microbial Colonization of Pancreatic Duct Stents

Overview of attention for article published in Pancreas, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
9 Mendeley
Title
Microbial Colonization of Pancreatic Duct Stents
Published in
Pancreas, July 2015
DOI 10.1097/mpa.0000000000000332
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jochen Schneider, Philipp Schenk, Andreas Obermeier, Julia Fremd, Susanne Feihl, Stefanie Forkl, Nina Wantia, Franziska Römmler, Bruno Neu, Monther Bajbouj, Stefan von Delius, Roland M. Schmid, Hana Algül, Andreas Weber

Abstract

The aim of the study was to analyze the microbial colonization rate as well as the spectrum and number of microorganisms in relation to the indwelling time of pancreatic stents. Forty pancreatic stents were prepared according to a standardized protocol and subsequently sonicated to optimize bacterial release from the biofilm on the stents. Two hundred forty-six microorganisms were identified. Thirty-nine of 40 stents were colonized with microorganisms. Aerobic gram-positive microorganisms (106/246 [43%]) accounted for the greatest proportion. The predominant microorganisms were Streptococcus species (46/246 [19%]), which were isolated from 27 (68%) of 40 stents. Stents with a short indwelling time (3-13 days) were mainly colonized with aerobic gram-positive bacteria (82%) and Candida species (63%). In contrast, anaerobes (P < 0.01, 69% vs 18%) and aerobic gram-negative microorganisms (P < 0.01, 93% vs 45%) such as Enterobacteriaceae (P < 0.01, 86% vs 27%) were significantly more present on stents with a long indwelling time (29-93 days), compared with stents with a short indwelling time. Microbial analysis of pancreatic duct stents revealed a very high colonization rate. Furthermore, the spectrum and number of microorganisms altered with the indwelling time of the stent. However, clinical relevance of our findings remains unclear.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 11%
Unknown 8 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Professor > Associate Professor 2 22%
Other 1 11%
Librarian 1 11%
Researcher 1 11%
Student > Bachelor 1 11%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 56%
Computer Science 1 11%
Unknown 3 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 June 2015.
All research outputs
#19,945,185
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Pancreas
#1,470
of 2,927 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#189,301
of 277,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pancreas
#38
of 54 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,927 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.8. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,613 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 54 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.